CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ4845556
Regular
Aug 04, 2016

ROBERT LYMAN vs. DRESSER-ATLAS INDUSTRIES, Permissibly Self-Insured, CNA CLAIMS

This case involves Robert Lyman's claim against Dresser-Atlas Industries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Lyman's "Petition for Removal" because it was misidentified in the system. The WCAB determined the filing was actually a Petition for Dismissal, which must first be addressed by the Workers' Compensation Judge. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the judge's report and dismissed the petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DismissalWCJ ReportEAMSWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalMisidentifiedTrialAdministrative Law JudgeSan Luis Obispo
References
Case No. ADJ8240882; ADJ8240881; ADJ8615401
Regular
Apr 21, 2025

ROBERT S. HAPPENY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN

Applicant Robert S. Happeny sustained industrial injuries during his employment as a correctional officer, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability by the WCJ due to his inability for vocational retraining. The WCJ also issued an unapportioned award, concluding that apportionment to nonindustrial factors was not proven. Defendant challenged this decision via a petition for reconsideration, disputing the method of combining disabilities and the reliability of vocational reports. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's determination of permanent and total disability based on vocational infeasibility and the lack of established apportionment, ultimately rescinding the original decision and substituting new findings of fact.

ADJ8240882ADJ8240881ADJ8615401correctional officerindustrial injuryheartpsycheright wristrespiratory systemlumbar spine
References
Case No. ADJ6420214
Regular
Jun 08, 2011

PERCY ROBERTS vs. CITY OF INGLEWOOD

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses a petition for reconsideration previously filed by the petitioner in the case of Roberts v. City of Inglewood. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of the reconsideration request. The original decision being reconsidered was issued on April 28, 2011. This order is effective as of June 8, 2011.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDismissed PetitionWithdrawn PetitionPermissibly Self-InsuredCity of InglewoodPercy RobertsADJ6420214ADJ6420999
References
Case No. ADJ696907 (VNO 0543817)
Regular
Jul 23, 2010

ROBERT PERCHLAK vs. WAL-MART, AVIZENT BENTONVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a decision regarding Robert Perchlak's industrial injury claim against Wal-Mart. The applicant challenged the $44\%$ permanent disability rating, arguing the rating specialist improperly disregarded physician findings. The WCAB clarified that rating specialists are limited to rating based on WCJ instructions and cannot independently assess medical impairments or deviate from AMA Guides criteria. The WCAB amended the decision to defer permanent disability and attorney's fees, returning the case for further proceedings to clarify the physician's impairment findings and ensure proper rating procedures are followed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRobert PerchlakWal-MartAvizent BentonvilleOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentDr. Arthur LipperAppeals Board Rule 10602Rater Authority
References
Case No. ADJ8139465
Regular
Apr 18, 2013

Robert Scharfe vs. VI-TEL, LUMBERMANS UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE

This case concerns applicant Robert Scharfe's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. Scharfe argued the administrative law judge erred in calculating his average weekly earnings, claiming the judge disregarded significant self-employment income. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's decision that Scharfe failed to provide substantial evidence of his self-employment earnings, as his tax returns showed a net loss. Additionally, the Board found no error in the admission of income declarations from Scharfe's child support cases, which contradicted his claimed earnings.

Robert ScharfeVi-TelLumbermans Underwriting AllianceADJ8139465Opinion and Order Denying Reconsiderationtemporary disability indemnityaverage weekly earningsself-employment incomechild support casesLos Angeles County Superior Court
References
Case No. ADJ2023809 (SRO 0103259)
Regular
Mar 07, 2012

Robert Larkins vs. DHL GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied DHL Global Business Services' petition for reconsideration. The Board found that DHL's unilateral decision to stop direct deposit payments violated a prior order and was sanctionable conduct. The applicant, Robert Larkins, was awarded permanent disability and future medical treatment following a 1998 injury. The Board's decision affirmed the obligation to continue electronic direct deposits and upheld sanctions against DHL for non-compliance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDHL Global Business ServicesSedgwick CMSRobert LarkinsOrder Denying ReconsiderationDirect DepositSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability
References
Case No. ANA 0374183
Regular
Mar 28, 2008

ROBERT BACON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the County of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration in the case of Robert Bacon. This action is necessary to allow the Board further time to fully review the factual and legal issues presented in the record. The Board will issue a decision after reconsideration following their comprehensive study.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationReconsideration UnitCase Number ANA 0374183County of Los AngelesRobert Bacon
References
Case No. ADJ3548896 (SAC 0367105)
Regular

ROBERT HOZE vs. AIRGAS, INC.; AIRGRM, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Robert Hoze's petition for removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that Hoze failed to demonstrate these conditions were met in this case. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied, and the matter will proceed under the standard appeals process.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportDenial of RemovalAirgas Inc.
References
Case No. ADJ4653074 (BAK 0152415)
Regular
Oct 11, 2013

ROBERT HUFF vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the administrative law judge's decision regarding applicant Robert Huff's workers' compensation claim against the California Department of Corrections. The Board amended the findings to deny temporary total disability benefits for the period December 9, 2009, to March 7, 2011, as the applicant had exhausted his 104-week limit. The Board also deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees, remanding the matter for a new rating based on the orthopedic Agreed Medical Evaluator's March 5, 2012 report, while affirming the rejection of the psychiatric AME's apportionment. Finally, the Board corrected a clerical error regarding the weekly rate for permanent disability benefits.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDROBERT HUFFCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSPermissibly UninsuredSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OpinionWCJAgreed Medical EvaluatorsAME
References
Case No. ADJ8190306
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

Silvestre Sanchez vs. Robert E. Town, Allied Insurance, A Nationwide Company

This case concerns whether an injured worker, Silvestre Sanchez, was an employee of Robert E. Town for workers' compensation purposes. The Board granted reconsideration to reverse the WCJ's finding of employment. The primary issue was whether Sanchez met the 52-hour work requirement within the 90 days preceding injury under Labor Code section 3352(h), which excludes certain residential employees. The Board found that based on conflicting testimony regarding a second payment, the applicant did not prove he worked over 52 hours, thus excluding him from coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSilvestre SanchezRobert E. TownAllied InsuranceLabor Code section 3352(h)excluded employeeresidential employee90-day perioddate of injuryFindings of Fact
References
Showing 1-10 of 314 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational